Watercolour paper: rag or wood pulp?

I recently discovered that the watercolour paper that I had been using (Ken Bromley's Practice Paper) -- actually Fabriano 130 lb Watercolour paper -- did not contain the proportion of cotton fibres that I originally believed to be the case. (Depending on the source, it could be either none at all, or 25 percent.) I know that most references and commentators stress the use of 100 percent rag (or cotton fibre) papers for watercolour, but is this just another oft-repeated mantra when there are some less expensive but almost as effective alternatives?

Wikipedia says that cotton is nearly 100 percent cellulose. Paper made from wood pulp should also be nearly 100 percent cellulose, as the claim is that it has been processed to remove the lignin and acid that causes it to turn yellow. The main difference between the two types of paper is that the cellulose fibres in the rag paper are longer, therefore making the paper stronger, more resistant to water, and a better surface to paint on. (It is not obvious that the cost of making a pure cotton paper explains the significant difference in price to consumers, however.)

The "sizing" of paper also has a bearing on how it works as a painting surface. Sizing is a substance used to control the absorption of a paper: gelatine is frequently used in manufacture. The most expensive papers appear to be both internally and externally sized. There is hard sizing and soft sizing. Hard-sized papers are most resistant to water and are best for some wet-in-wet techniques, whereas a soft-sized paper may not stand up well to repeated working.

Labelling on watercolour papers will give dimensions, weight and surface texture as standard. Most seem to claim 100 percent acid-free. Some will say archival, but what does this actually mean? Details such as composition and type of sizing can be harder to discover, although the degree of cotton fibre content is usually a selling point. And the price compared to other papers is usually a good clue.

The reality is that there is no (international) standard for watercolour paper, so the painter has to trust that the paper is fit for purpose and is what the manufacturer claims it to be. Consumers have to go on trust that the artwork will look as good on it a century (or more) later. How many people have the necessary equipment and knowledge to test that a paper is made of 100 percent cotton fibres and will not lose its original brightness after a hundred years? Do watercolour paper manufacturers actually do this? From a price point of view, I would expect Arches Aquarelle paper to be a better long-term investment than St Cuthbert's Mill Bockingford paper, but do we know if this is true?

I am still learning and experimenting. It would certainly be foolish to use a paper that is not labelled for use with watercolour. When I find a paper that seems to suit the way I (try to) paint, I will probably go with that -- assuming I can afford it in quantity. The chances are that it will be 100 percent cotton, but I am not ruling out something like Bockingford either. When I'm gone, do you think that the people disposing of my effects will care whether the paper is derived from cotton or wood pulp? ;-)

A watercolour secondary palette

When I first got interested in watercolours in the late 1980s, one of the many things that I found bewildering at the time was the question of which colours I needed? My sole reference book back then listed a number of manufacturers supplying a multitude of paints, but had no clear recommendation about what a beginner should start with!  I remembered from distant school days that red, yellow and blue were (supposed to be) primary colours, so why did I need a palette containing a dozen (or more) different paints?

I have since learnt that in watercolour painting, the use of the split primary palette is fairly well established. This takes my three primary colours listed above, and splits them into cool and warm -- so a cool red and a warm red, a cool yellow and a warm yellow, and a cool blue and a warm blue. But then it seems to get complicated when you start mixing them together. For example, I guess that green should be mixed from a cool yellow and a cool blue, but what if a warm colour is used instead?

Presumably with practice it becomes second nature to mix colours using a split primary palette? However, this does seem to raise the bar -- unnecessarily? -- for beginners, who may struggle with colour theory as it is often presented. Perhaps this helps to explain why some people use palettes with a large number of colours, as it is too much of a chore to mix them from primaries? (I have ignored the discussion of staining and granulating pigments, as that is another dimension!)

In the course of browsing the Handprint pages, I discovered the idea of using a secondary palette instead. This made a lot of sense to me. No longer did I need to worry about whether I needed to use the cool or warm primary colour, because the primaries had been changed to three that I recognised from computer colour printing (cyan, magenta, yellow [CMY]), and three secondary colours had been introduced (red-orange, green, blue-violet). Furthermore, the gamut of the palette had been increased -- especially for greens.

I was then pleased to find out that the selection of paints in my Cotman Sketchers' Pocket Box readily lent themselves to a secondary palette: Cadmium Yellow Hue would be primary yellow, Cadmium Red Pale Hue would be secondary red-orange, Alizarin Crimson Hue would be primary magenta, Ultramarine would be secondary blue-violet, Intense Blue would be primary cyan, and Viridian Hue would be secondary green.

Further reading of the Handprint pages led to more specific recommendations of primaries and secondaries. Restricting myself to the Winsor and Newton Cotman range, I replaced Cadmium Yellow Hue with Cadmium Yellow Pale Hue, and Alizarin Crimson Hue with Permanent Rose to closer match the suggestions. The Cotman Intense Blue is PB15 rather than the PB15:3 (Phthalo Blue Green Shade) that is suggested, but I was happy with that. If I was fussy about single pigment paints, then Winsor Yellow and Winsor Orange (Red shade) from the W&N Professional range would need to replace the Cotman Cadmium Yellow Pale Hue and Cadmium Red Pale Hue respectively. (I have since found that the Daniel Smith Transparent Pyrrol Orange gives a closer match to Cadmium Red Pale Hue than Winsor Orange (Red Shade).)

I have been regularly using my Cotman secondary palette since late 2014. Even though I was a little unsure at first as to whether the [CMY subtractive] primaries would work as expected, I have been delighted with the outcome. I have had no trouble at all in mixing the colours I want. (See the crude colour wheel at the top.) My mind has not been cluttered by "rules" of what I should (or should not) mix with what. By alternating the arrangement of primaries and secondaries in the palette, I can easily find the complementary when I need to tone down a colour or mix a chromatic grey. (The row of pans at the bottom corresponds to the row of colour swatches at the top.)

So my question has now become: "Why is the split primary palette still often taught to beginners in exclusion to anything else?" (Or to put it another way, why don't computer and commercial printers use split primary colours? Hmm...)

Watercolour reference cards

Perhaps this is something that comes with experience, but when starting out with watercolours, something that made the learning curve a little steeper for me was the difficulty in being able to correctly identify dried paint colours in their pans. Dark colours especially can look very similar when dry. Winsor and Newton now print colour names and pigment information on their exterior of their pans -- which helps somewhat -- but even then, this does not show when the pans are in position in the palette.

One approach might be to arrange the pan colours in specific locations in the palette, so that with regular practice it becomes instinctive as to where a particular paint is located. However, this scheme discourages the use of new and alternate colours in the course of skill development and experimentation.

My solution has been to produce "watercolour reference cards" to fit inside the paint box. This serves a couple of purposes. Firstly, the card clearly shows the position of each pan colour in relation to the others. Secondly, it acts as a (small) colour swatch, permitting decisions to be made on whether the paint is a good starting point for a desired colour.

I use a small pad of Cotman 90 lb Not paper to make my reference cards. I measure a strip to fit inside the Cotman Sketcher's Pocket Box, and then use a stencil cut from a strip of clear plastic (long sleeve shirt collar packing) to draw a number of square swatch boxes in HB pencil. (This saves the trouble of measuring and marking out the squares individually -- see the photo.) I then label each box with the paint it will contain, and then paint the swatch in each.  When all the swatches are done, I cut out the strip to make the reference card and place it inside the paint box.

Even with 90 lb paper, I have found that it is possible to paint swatches on both sides of the paper. So if you are organised enough to have a couple of combinations of  preferred pans, it might be only a matter of flipping over the reference card to ring the changes!

The Cotman Pocket PLUS

Having already mentioned the shortcomings of the Cotman Sketchers' Pocket Box (limited mixing palette space and the risk of losing the pans), the slightly more expensive Pocket PLUS appeared to have addressed these issues -- so I thought I had better investigate for myself. The packaging of my example probably dates from around the time that Winsor & Newton were acquired by ColArt, as the half pans were wrapped in cellophane only.

Upon opening the box, it is clear it is different from the more compact Sketchers' Pocket Box. For starters, it is made out of a thinner plastic and does not fit together as snugly as the Sketchers' Pocket Box. The white case resembles a clam shell and is hinged with a section of blue plastic, and thus does not open flat like the Pocket Box. Inside the lid are two separate mixing palettes, one of which will clip on to the base of the box. There are three cassettes made up of four half pans that snap into the base of the box. A short-handled Cotman No. 5 brush is also supplied.

The cassettes will take either four half pans or two whole pans -- but only Cotman, Winsor & Newton or Daler-Rowney pans appear to fit. (Other brands are too big.) This may be an issue if you like to fill empty pans with tube paint. There are lugs in the base that the cassettes snap into to hold them securely, but of course there is still the problem that the watercolour cakes may not be well-attached to their pans!

The Cotman half pans mine was supplied with were Cadmium Yellow Pale Hue, Cadmium Yellow Hue, Cadmium Red Pale Hue, Alizarin Crimson, Ultramarine, Cobalt Blue [sic], Sap Green, Viridian Hue, Yellow Ochre, Burnt Umber, Burnt Sienna, and Chinese White. The inclusion of Cobalt Blue is a little strange as this colour should be a mix of Ultramarine and white, rather than the more expensive pure pigment. (I would replace it with Cotman's Intense Blue, which seems to be a well-regarded paint.) Also, there is not much of a difference between Cadmium Yellow Pale Hue and Cadmium Yellow Hue...

There is certainly more mixing area available: up to three times that of Sketchers' Pocket Box in fact, as the lid can be used if you can manage to get it flat. I find the blue plastic hinge annoying, as it prevents the Pocket PLUS from lying flat on a table -- but this is just me, as it is designed to be held in the hand and the hinge is supposed to be a finger hold!

This is a better choice of watercolour paint box for plein air painting, notwithstanding the comment about loose pigment cakes in pans.

Ken Bromley artists' watercolour paints

In common with many hobbies and pastimes, watercolour painting can prove to be expensive, especially for those on a limited budget. It is all too tempting to try new papers, paints and brushes in the quest to achieve that "look" -- and before you know it, the bank balance is considerably reduced!

While I would always recommend supporting a local business if you have one (use it or lose it!), one way of saving the pennies a little can be to shop on-line and buy in quantity to offset (or reduce) the delivery charge. I have heard good things about Jackson's Art Supplies, but I have been a repeat customer of artists' materials supplier Ken Bromley Art Supplies for a few years. In common with Jackson's, Ken Bromley market their own branded range of artists' watercolour paint, so I was curious to find out more about it.

The website says that the paints are made in the UK: this is printed on the tubes as well. The 14 ml size of the paint tube and shape of the cap looks remarkably like the packaging of Winsor and Newton Artists' watercolours up to 2012. However, the similarity ends there, as the paint colour numbers match neither W&N, nor Daler-Rowney for that matter.

The range is currently made up of 41 colours, all supplied in 14 ml tubes, most of which are priced as Series 1. (There are nine colours in Series 2.) Twenty-six colours are single pigment, eight are two pigments, four are three pigments, and three are made of four pigments. Catalogue prices for Series 1 is £4.32 per tube, and for Series 2 £4.73 per tube. (They usually go on offer at least once a year, so a further savings can be made.) To the experienced watercolour paint buyer, I suspect it sounds more like a student range in terms of number of paints, series and pricing.

Some of the pigment choices seem a little unusual, especially given recent findings about lightfastness. Both Alizarin Crimson (PR83:1) and Aureolin (PY40) are listed in the range. Alizarin Crimson is notorious for fading badly on exposure to light, and Handprint recommends that PY40 is best avoided. Fortunately, the Ken Bromley website lists pigment information with a mouse click, so it makes sense to do a little pigment research first before you buy.

In my examples, the tubes themselves were well-filled, and I had to be careful not to get paint everywhere! I had no difficulty in filling empty half-pans from the tubes. Once the paint in the half-pans had dried, it re-wetted easily and performed as well as it did fresh from the tube.

What are they like to paint with? Well, so far I have only made some small colour swatches and run a lightfastness test. I found that the paints compared favourably to Cotman colours in most cases, although I hoped the Burnt Umber (Dark) would have been at least as dark as the Cotman version -- which it wasn't in my sample. Permanent Rose (PV19) was redder than I expected, and not like the Cotman colour of the same name and pigment. But on the whole, the paints seemed at least as good as the Cotman equivalents.  (Another unscientific comparison, then!)

With some caveats, I would recommend these paints (to less-experienced painters like me), especially if bought on offer.